Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

yardbarker_sections

List all Yardbarker sections as a dated snapshot—sports hubs, team pages, school pages, and topics—with typed slug, name, and URL for fetching headlines.

Instructions

List Yardbarker sections. Lists the 589 Yardbarker sections as a dated snapshot: 88 sports hubs, 278 team pages, 150 school pages and 73 topics. Each has a typed slug (such as sport_1 or team_18), a display name and a hub url. Use the slug as section in yardbarker-headlines. Takes no parameters.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.9

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact return shape (589 sections broken into 88 hubs / 278 teams / 150 schools / 73 topics), the field types (`slug`, `name`, `url`), and that the data is a 'dated snapshot.' It stops short of stating auth, rate limits, or refresh cadence, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then layered with useful detail (counts, field shapes, cross-tool usage). Every sentence earns its place, though the redundant 'List Yardbarker sections. Lists the 589...' opening could be tightened into one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the sole carrier of return-value semantics — and it delivers them fully (counts, fields, snapshot nature) plus the cross-tool linkage. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly and explicitly reinforces this with 'Takes no parameters,' preventing any false expectation of filtering inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Yardbarker sections'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling by noting the slug is consumed by `yardbarker-headlines`. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use the slug as `section` in `yardbarker-headlines`.' This names the downstream alternative and the condition that selects it, so the tool's role in a two-step workflow (get slug, then fetch headlines) is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools